• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge strikes down law that gives clergy members tax-free housing allowances

danarhea said:
There goes freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, all in one sentence. Well done. LOL.
Click to expand...

I've never made any suggestions that I am in favor of Freedoms. Remember that.


Kreton said:
SO then you believe that government control, including taking guns away from the public and a government imposed health care system would be appropriate? Interesting.
Click to expand...

I beleive Government has the Responsibility and Duty to ensure that those who wish to engage in the Privileges of Citizenship need to first prove that they understand and can undertake the Duties of Citizenship. After that gun ownership would be fine. In terms of private businesses, government would have little to no input in them or restriction on them.

Kreton said:
And by that logic they wouldn't making money, and therefore wouldn't have a need to be taxed. But that is not the way it is. They are very public, and many religious institutions impose their will and beliefs into society and the government. Therefore even from the church end is not a separation of church and state. So your little argument that they shouldn't have to pay taxes still does not hold any water.
Click to expand...

Then let's look at all of the other non-profit organizations (colleges, private charities, etc...) that shold lose their tax exempt status as well. In for a penny, in for a pound.
 
Tigger said:
I beleive Government has the Responsibility and Duty to ensure that those who wish to engage in the Privileges of Citizenship need to first prove that they understand and can undertake the Duties of Citizenship. After that gun ownership would be fine. In terms of private businesses, government would have little to no input in them or restriction on them.
Click to expand...

Giving the government total authority over everyone and everything, total government control as you stated before, would extend to them telling you if you can or cannot own a gun, or even revoking that priveledge for any reason that they see fit. By your own words it should be completely up to Obama whether or not you should be given the priveledge to own any firearm at any point in time, and up to him to take it away from you. Also it stands to reason that Obama has the right mandate Obama care to you and whomever he wishes among other things deemed appropriate by him.

Then let's look at all of the other non-profit organizations (colleges, private charities, etc...) that shold lose their tax exempt status as well. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait. Are you suggesting that those places should lose their tax exempt status? What makes a church so special? Again you are going right back to special rights, not equal rights.

Total government control over the people, endorsing Obamacare, agreeing that you do not have the right to bare arms, and fighting for special rights. You may be the most liberal person I've ever spoke to on here.
 
danarhea said:
I agree with this decision. In giving clergy members special treatment over everybody else, when paying taxes does not hinder their ability to do their job, the establishment clause of the US Constitution is violated.
Click to expand...

I not only agree, but I don't think any person or organization should be tax exempt.
 
Kreton said:
Giving the government total authority over everyone and everything, total government control as you stated before, would extend to them telling you if you can or cannot own a gun, or even revoking that priveledge for any reason that they see fit. By your own words it should be completely up to Obama whether or not you should be given the priveledge to own any firearm at any point in time, and up to him to take it away from you. Also it stands to reason that Obama has the right mandate Obama care to you and whomever he wishes among other things deemed appropriate by him.
Click to expand...

No, and you have missed a major point. What I'm discussing is the way the society would work if I had the opportunity to re-order it. In such a society someone like Obama could not come to power. Even if they did, the changes he has made would not have been possible because the Founding Documents of the nation could not be changed. However you are correct that firearms ownership and many other things would be at the behest of the Government, based on whether or not you are able to maintain a properly moral lifestyle.

Kreton said:
Wait wait wait. Are you suggesting that those places should lose their tax exempt status? What makes a church so special? Again you are going right back to special rights, not equal rights.
Click to expand...

I am suggesting that if you take it away from one (churches) you must take it away from all.

Kreton said:
Total government control over the people, endorsing Obamacare, agreeing that you do not have the right to bare arms, and fighting for special rights. You may be the most liberal person I've ever spoke to on here.
Click to expand...

Total Government Control over many parts of society, YES. Others, NO. Obamacare, in fact ANY government involvement in health services, NO. The Privilege to Bear Arms, like all others would be based on whether or not you could maintain a properly moral lifestyle.
 
Tigger said:
No, and you have missed a major point. What I'm discussing is the way the society would work if I had the opportunity to re-order it. In such a society someone like Obama could not come to power. Even if they did, the changes he has made would not have been possible because the Founding Documents of the nation could not be changed. However you are correct that firearms ownership and many other things would be at the behest of the Government, based on whether or not you are able to maintain a properly moral lifestyle.
Click to expand...

And when you are deemed to not be living a proper moral lifestyle for any reason you will surrender all fire arms without question or delay?

I am suggesting that if you take it away from one (churches) you must take it away from all.
Click to expand...

Which is it? Special rights for different groups of people, or equal rights for them all.

Total Government Control over many parts of society, YES. Others, NO. Obamacare, in fact ANY government involvement in health services, NO. The Privilege to Bear Arms, like all others would be based on whether or not you could maintain a properly moral lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Quit riding the fence here. You are calling for total government control. So just fall in line and do what your leader tells you without question. Your words not mine.

And further more you stating that you want total government control yet telling them they shouldn't be able to tax are contridictions.
 
Kreton said:
And when you are deemed to not be living a proper moral lifestyle for any reason you will surrender all fire arms without question or delay?
Click to expand...

When directed to do so by a properly moral Government, I would do so without a second thought. Now realize that I don't believe any such thing has existed in the United States since prior to 1860.

Kreton said:
Which is it? Special rights for different groups of people, or equal rights for them all.
Click to expand...

What it should be is a decision.... Do we give ALL private social welfare and spiritual organizations tax-exempt status or NONE of them. Personally, I'd prefer that we not tax ANY business, and couldn't really care which way you folks go, so long as you're consistant with it.

Kreton said:
Quit riding the fence here. You are calling for total government control. So just fall in line and do what your leader tells you without question. Your words not mine.
Click to expand...

I believe that there are many things the Government should be involved in. With regard to those things, Governmental control needs to be Total and Absolute. Beyond that the Government should have NO power or involvement whatsoever. It's a Black - White concept. All or Nothing. Of course we could probably discuss where that line runs for hours, if you're really interested.

So long as we're talking about a properly moral Government, one should absolutely fall into line, and I would.

Kreton said:
And further more you stating that you want total government control yet telling them they shouldn't be able to tax are contridictions.
Click to expand...

Again, the Government has an appropriate focus. Business and Religion are not within the limits of that focus. Taxing individuals is one thing. Taxing businesses, any form of progressive tax system, etc.... is something entirely different.
 
Tigger said:
When directed to do so by a properly moral Government, I would do so without a second thought. Now realize that I don't believe any such thing has existed in the United States since prior to 1860.
Click to expand...

Who detemines a proper moral government in your little totalitarian society? Certainly not you (meaning the individual) considering we all have different morals?

I believe that there are many things the Government should be involved in. With regard to those things, Governmental control needs to be Total and Absolute. Beyond that the Government should have NO power or involvement whatsoever. It's a Black - White concept. All or Nothing. Of course we could probably discuss where that line runs for hours, if you're really interested.

So long as we're talking about a properly moral Government, one should absolutely fall into line, and I would.
Click to expand...

Start a thread somewhere appropriate and IM me the link.

Again, the Government has an appropriate focus. Business and Religion are not within the limits of that focus. Taxing individuals is one thing. Taxing businesses, any form of progressive tax system, etc.... is something entirely different.
Click to expand...

Seriously? This entire thread is about taxing individuals within the clergy. The exact opposite of the point you are arguing here. Consistency you say?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Care to support that bold assertion using a precedent?
Click to expand...

A claim under the establishment clause is the only thing that simply being a citizen automatically gives a person standing to bring. There are not strong enough precedents for keeping religious organizations from exploiting their privilege at the expense of the secular. This case may end up being one such precedent.

Tax law special provision overturned by equal protection argument:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Click to expand...

That's about a state treating its own citizens and citizens of other states differently. That is a far more common application of the 14th than anything to do with religion. Believe it or not, but "treating people differently" is treated differently depending on the circumstance.
 
j-mac said:
Surely you know that if the door is opened to tax religious clergy, and church's that could invariably lead to government excluding religion from society in this country....And I think there might be a little problem of the 1st amendment for you to get around...."nor the free exercise thereof."
Click to expand...

Why would the clergy have a special tax break that the rest of us don't have? It seems to me that giving them one would be a violation of the First amendment.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why would the clergy have a special tax break that the rest of us don't have? It seems to me that giving them one would be a violation of the First amendment.
Click to expand...

Priests take a vow of poverty. And most clergy I have ever met from other denominations are of a modest income. I'm not talking about the tv charlatans that thrive off of donations, but rather the bulk of clergy in this country which are lower middle income. As my understanding is that clergy have always gotten an exemption for their housing because in most cases the house is owned by the church.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Indeed a silly law, but also easy to work around, for the most part; simply have the church drop the housing allowance and lease/buy the property directly then allow their clergy to live there rent free. ;)

In many cases property owned by/used by a church is also exempted from local property taxation.
Click to expand...

Frankly I hope every church finds a ****house lawyer to get them around this just to piss off the atheists. It's so important to them to gig the church every chance they get. Go ahead and get the tax free status of churches removed. It will just allow them to spend their gazillions of dollars to go after every enemy they have. They have so much money it's not even going to be a contest.
 
j-mac said:
Priests take a vow of poverty. And most clergy I have ever met from other denominations are of a modest income. I'm not talking about the tv charlatans that thrive off of donations, but rather the bulk of clergy in this country which are lower middle income. As my understanding is that clergy have always gotten an exemption for their housing because in most cases the house is owned by the church.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good. Should everyone who is of lower middle income be able to write off the cost of housing, then?

or should the clergy have a special privilege just for being clergy?
 
j-mac said:
Priests take a vow of poverty. And most clergy I have ever met from other denominations are of a modest income. I'm not talking about the tv charlatans that thrive off of donations, but rather the bulk of clergy in this country which are lower middle income. As my understanding is that clergy have always gotten an exemption for their housing because in most cases the house is owned by the church.
Click to expand...

It's really similar to food stamps. The bad ones get all the press and the humble, decent ones take the flak.

Its regrettable that most of our influences are like this and even worse that people fall into the trap.

Some of the kindest humans I met (long ago) were Priests who had nothing and cared for nothing but the people. But the pedophiles got all the press and the angelic ones were smeared by the same brush.
 
American said:
Frankly I hope every church finds a ****house lawyer to get them around this just to piss off the atheists. It's so important to them to gig the church every chance they get. Go ahead and get the tax free status of churches removed. It will just allow them to spend their gazillions of dollars to go after every enemy they have. They have so much money it's not even going to be a contest.
Click to expand...

Why couldn't an atheist group form the church of total nonbelief and thus get the same subsidies as the rest of the churches?
 
Dittohead not! said:
That's all well and good. Should everyone who is of lower middle income be able to write off the cost of housing, then?

or should the clergy have a special privilege just for being clergy?
Click to expand...

That's not what I said...If the house is owned by the church, it is exempt, if not, then the clergy gets the same breaks as everyone else. Would you like extra taxation for men of the cloth?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why couldn't an atheist group form the church of total nonbelief and thus get the same subsidies as the rest of the churches?
Click to expand...

Show that church in some sort of reality, and they have the same exemptions...But it is my understanding that Atheists say they don't have a church, or are part of any religion....Are you here to admit for them that their non belief is a religion?
 
j-mac said:
That's not what I said...If the house is owned by the church, it is exempt, if not, then the clergy gets the same breaks as everyone else. Would you like extra taxation for men of the cloth?
Click to expand...

Not extra taxation, the same taxation.

If I work for an employer that provides housing for its employees, that's a benefit of employment and thus a part of my compensation. I pay taxes on that compensation That's fair, as the guy renting pays rent post tax. How is it fair for clergy to get a similar compensation, and pay no taxes on it? That seems to me to be government subsidy of religion, which is contrary to the First Amendment.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why couldn't an atheist group form the church of total nonbelief and thus get the same subsidies as the rest of the churches?
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah sure, go ahead and make jokes. The tax exempt status is the separation people want. Once removed the church with have the power to do whatever it wants, and it will have 100's of millions of dollars to make it happen. Careful what you wish for.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not extra taxation, the same taxation.

If I work for an employer that provides housing for its employees, that's a benefit of employment and thus a part of my compensation. I pay taxes on that compensation That's fair, as the guy renting pays rent post tax. How is it fair for clergy to get a similar compensation, and pay no taxes on it? That seems to me to be government subsidy of religion, which is contrary to the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

This may help you....

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom